by TexasDarlin
The people are speaking. Is our party listening?
Early in the primaries, Barack Obama promised that he would win more people over the longer he campaigned. He said that every state becomes an “Obama state” once he goes there. But an interesting thing happened as winter turned to spring, and the people kept voting in record numbers. Hillary Clinton stole the momentum. Her popularity soared; her appeal broadened; and she steadfastly became the darling of the masses, even as Barack was crowned darling of the mass media.
It started back in New Hampshire, when Hillary “found her voice,” but what really happened is that the American people have found Hillary. And there’s nothing like raw data to illustrate the point:
*The Electoral Vote “Poll Watcher” shows Hillary gaining steam against McCain, now leading 310 to 228, with Hillary winning key states like Florida, North Carolina, and West Virginia. (Obama trails McCain by over 30 EV’s.)
*Over the last three months, Hillary has won more contests, gained more votes, and earned more delegates. Since March 4th, she has gained nearly 500,000 more popular votes than Barack Obama as voters in crucial battleground states have made their voices known.
*More Americans have voted for Hillary than any other presidential candidate this cycle. In fact, more people have voted for Hillary than any other primary candidate in history - nearly 18 million so far.
*Just yesterday, Hillary won 150,000 more votes than Obama in Kentucky and Oregon, even though delegate counts will be split fairly evenly.
*Hillary has now won nearly 64,000 more votes than Obama in total, when all caucuses and primaries are included.
Hillary Clinton just keeps winning. She is the candidate who closes the deal with voters. Despite being out-spent by margins of up to 4-to-1; despite anxious efforts by Obama, his surrogates, and an obedient press corps to convince people that the race is over. They keep voting for her anyway. Thankfully there’s a stubborn gene in the American people, a natural resistance to authority, and maybe that’s why the people love Hillary. They see her get up with the roosters every day, work herself to exhaustion in pursuit of a dream, and never give up or give in to the nay-sayers. Hillary, in spite of all the odds, has become a genuine Made in the USA hero, a leader for the people and no longer just “Bill’s wife,” the other Clinton.
My candidate for President, Hillary Clinton, said in her Kentucky victory speech last night:
It is not just Kentucky bluegrass that is music to my ears. It is the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of some pretty tough odds. Some have said your votes didn’t matter, that this campaign was over, that allowing everyone to vote and every vote to count would somehow be a mistake. But that didn’t stop you. You’ve never given up on me because you know I’ll never give up on you.
Funny thing…that pesky notion of one-person-one-vote-rules in a democracy, such an irritant to the power-brokers who want Hillary Clinton to pad dutifully back to her seat in the Senate, and forget about the 18 million people who want her to be President, including 2.3 million in Florida and Michigan who knew exactly what they were doing.
Power to the people, that’s the lesson from November, 2000. It’s not too late to take it to heart. Hillary Clinton can close this deal for the Democrats in November.
Note: popular vote statistics from Real Clear Politics
TexasDarlin, all rights reserved
Not affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign
18 responses so far ↓
Boomer // May 21, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“Funny thing…that parasitic notion of one-person-one-vote-rules in a democracy, such an irritant…”
_____
” If we were campaigning under Republican rules she’d already be the nominee.”
- Bill Clinton
_____
Maybe she oughta run as a Gooper.
goodtimepolitics // May 21, 2008 at 10:39 pm
If the people knew earlier what Obama was and the media had done its job of informing the people Hillary would already have been picked to run against McCain. I’m a democrat but will be voting for McCain cause I will not vote for Obama!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/05/21/obama-is-swimming-in-a-sea-of-left-wing-extremism-with/
Boomer // May 21, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Goodtimepolitics-
Ahhh.h.h…the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy.
So, you want more war, more government by lobbyists, more privatization, more incoherence at 1600 Penn Ave, and an Oligarchy majority Supreme Court if you don’t get your way?
You go right ahead and vote McBu’ush. You are no Democrat.
kyle // May 21, 2008 at 11:03 pm
Hey TD, Kyle here. How’s it goin’?
So, ah, again with the popular vote thing, huh? I’d really love to see a post analyzing the whole rationale for awarding the nomination to the candidate who wins the popular vote. Maybe I’m just not seeing things the way you are, but it seems to me that if the race were to be decided solely based on popular vote, that would mean that:
-A candidate would not bother spending any time in small states (West Virginia? Kentucky?) because there simply aren’t that many voters there;
-a candidate would spend most of his/her time in big cities because they’re packed with the most voters;
-states would never hold caucuses, as it would be counterproductive; caucus turnout is only 1/4 that of primary turnout, so why would a state want to have only one-quarter the voice of other states?
-all primaries would be fully open (not restricted by party) because, again, that would draw more voters, enhancing their value.
By those measures, I’d say using the popular vote would’ve been better off for Obama, wouldn’t it? He’s done way better than Clinton in cities (more voters); way better in caucuses; and way better in primaries that were open to independents and non-Democrats.
However, the rules everyone agreed on stated that each state could choose to run a caucus, an open primary, or a restricted primary. And by those rules, Obama has bested her.
And, lastly, if you’re going to claim that Clinton leads in overall votes, why not indicate that you are choosing to give Clinton her full portion of Michigan votes while giving Obama zero. I know his name wasn’t on the ballot, but did all those “uncommitted” voters really mean to vote for someone named “uncommitted”? I’d be willing to bet at least some of them, likely far more than the 64,000 you tout as a legitimate lead.
Keep writing. I do truly enjoy your posts and your willingness to respond to your commenters.
texasdarlin // May 21, 2008 at 11:37 pm
kyle, i’ll consider writing the analysis you’ve requested, but just briefly will say that the superdelegates may use any metric they find relevant, and popular vote certainly seems to reflect the “will of the people.” As for Michigan, it’s my strong view that BO made a tactical error removing his name from that ballot; he didn’t have to.
Boomer // May 21, 2008 at 11:49 pm
“As for Michigan, it’s my strong view that BO made a tactical error removing his name from that ballot; he didn’t have to.”
_____
Error? Why? It looks to have been a smart move, given the DNC ruling. They agreed to not campaign there. You just retroactively want it to have been so (his name remaining), so you could now claim that she beat him straight up. The truth is, we’ll never really know how an overt one-on-one would have turned out. You’re just spinning conjectures here, because they’re all you have.
She may well have beaten him in an honest popular vote in MI after an active campaign there (though while the delegate distributions may still have been another matter, just as eslewhere). But we will really never know.
goodtimepolitics // May 22, 2008 at 3:41 am
Boomer how could you vote for a man that has treated Hillary the way he has, if we the people had known what we know now about Obama, Hillary would already be the winner. He has lied to get where he is. Hillary has not gave up the fight yet! Yes I’m a reg. democrat, but I will not vote for Obama as he is to far left for me! I would vote for Hillary and if she isn’t a choice then it will have to be McCain! Sorry but I do not vote straight democrat ticket just because I’m a democrat!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/05/21/hillary-threatens-dire-consequences/
Gob Bluth // May 22, 2008 at 2:06 pm
I have posted this question on this blog more times than I can count:
Specifically what changed between September 2007 when Senator Clinton - of her own volition - signed onto the pledge to neither campaign NOR participate in any contest outside the DNC preapproved window (i.e. FL and MI) and January 2008 when she suddenly became concerned about the disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida voters? And why did she state - clearly and unambiguously - while campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire that the Michigan contest didn’t count? Don’t believe me? Here’s the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101100859_pf.html
She agreed to penalize Florida and Michigan. Other candidates, in accordance with the pledge to which they were signatories, removed their name from the ballot. That she should now be rewarded for backtracking flies in the face of decency.
Further, the DNC voted on 12/1/07 to strip FL and MI of their delegates as a sanction. However, to the best of my knowledge, Senator Clinton was silent on the point for two months. Why?
GTP, you say that you don’t know how anyone could support Obama given how he has treated Senator Clinton. Specifically what has he done? And we’re supposed to take offense because of some perception that he hasn’t been nice to her? Come on. This is the big leagues, and she is more than capable of playing in them. She dishes it out as good as anyone. She’s no wallflower.
Boomer and Kyle make great points about what a McCain presidency would look like. I agree wholeheartedly.
And I’ll raise another point that has seldom been broached. Do you *really* want the Republican attach machine (now with 527 groups!!!) to start delving into Bill Clinton’s activities - both personal and professional - over the last eight years?
kyle // May 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Well put, Gob.
I’d like to take a second to thank our kind host, TexasDarlin. Since I’ve started reading and commenting here, I haven’t once been called a troll or an “Obamabot” or any other such nonsense. I think that folks like Gob and me legitimately wonder about Clinton supporters’ reasoning sometimes, and it’s nice to have a venue to raise these questions
I might get a little sarcastic sometimes, I know. Hey, I’m a New Yorker. But thanks for the good ol’ southern hospitality, TD.
Oh, and GTP: You said “He has lied to get where he is.” Explain that.
Gob Bluth // May 22, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Good point, Kyle, and I second your thanks to our good host. I’ve not been called an Obamabot or a troll, either. Some other snarky comments have been made, but I’ve made some of my own, for which I feel badly, and hey, passions run high with these things.
texasdarlin // May 22, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Gob — Hillary supports seating Michigan and florida now because last year when it was decided to strip their delegates, no one knew that 2.3 million people would show up anyway; it was assumed that there would be little interest in the primary but the people sort of took it upon themselves to speak up. Hillary wants to acknowledge their voices, which is a bedrock principle in democracy. The situation is fluid and the rules provide for a review of penalties. That process should play out.
As for 527s going after the Clintons, I have no fear of that and neither do they.
Gob Bluth // May 22, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Wait a minute: you’re going to argue that last year no one thought there would be much interest in the primary?? Seriously?!?!
And why does it matter if 2 people showed up or 2 million pe0ple showed up? What you’re saying is that it’s ok to disenfranchise certain numbers of people, but it ceases to be acceptable when it crosses some unknown numeric threshold?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the pledge is essentially a contract among the signatories and the DNC. It is not subject to review and appeal, except when someone decides they want to change the rules.
Once again, how do you explain away the Senator’s own comment that the Michigan contest didn’t count for anything?
And how do you explain away the fact that the whole Florida/Michigan solution was put together by none other than Harold Ickes, a strategist for Mrs. Clinton?
If I were the Clintons, I would be very, very wary of scrutiny into my personal life and finances. First, ex-president or not, it’s not easy to make $109,000,000 in six years. Second, does anyone really believe that President Clinton just suddenly cleaned up his act on the personal end since he left the White House? Please. Third, the former President, while clearly a world class intellectual, has shown a remarkable proclivity toward risky behavior, and a disinclination to play things on the safe side. I think to have no fear of what might surface is naive.
goodtimepolitics // May 22, 2008 at 7:41 pm
If its the big times like it was said above, then maybe Obama should quit crying about his wife being “attack” for saying she was not proud of her country her entire adult life.
Mr. McCain was attacked by Sen. Harkin and in a uncalled for way which will also hurt out military men and women! Go Hillary, now she says that the rules need changing! I agree with her as no American should be told their vote will not count!
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/05/22/iowa-sen-tom-harkin-military-background-makes-mccain-unfit-to-be-commander-in-chief/
http://goodtimepolitics.com/2008/05/22/iowa-sen-tom-harkin-military-background-makes-mccain-unfit-to-be-commander-in-chief/
LostinAustin // May 22, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Time magazine’s Karen Tumulty reports:
What will Clinton’s terms of surrender turn out to be? Her husband, for one, seems to have a pretty clear idea what he thinks she should get as a consolation prize. In Bill Clinton’s view, she has earned nothing short of an offer to be Obama’s running mate, according to some who are close to the former President. Bill “is pushing real hard for this to happen,” says a friend.
The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.
Gob Bluth // May 22, 2008 at 8:02 pm
Bottom line: She lost. And she’s not entitled to anything except to return to the Senate.
And if he’d lost, he’d be entitled to the same.
texasdarlin // May 22, 2008 at 8:04 pm
LostinAustin, that rag you cite links ZERO sources and it denied by both candidates. Are you saying everyone is lying? Hillary would be foolish to want to be VP on an Obama ticket because he will LOSE.
Gob Bluth // May 22, 2008 at 9:07 pm
GTP,
I concur on the point about Michelle Obama - if she’s out there as a surrogate, which she is, then she’s fair game. Just as Bill Clinton is. And just as Chelsea Clinton should be.
But here’s where you lose me: Senator Clinton put the rules in place that she now purports to find so objectionable. She told those people - along with the other Democratic candidates - in September 2007 that those contests would be meaningless. And she was complicit in stripping those states of their delegates.
So calling for the reform of the rules that she put in place isn’t reform. It’s transparent opportunism.
kyle // May 22, 2008 at 9:13 pm
TD: You’re right, he would lose…if he put her on the ticket.
That “rag,” as you call it, has already broken numerous stories this campaign, dating back to it being the first to report that Ted Kennedy would be endorsing Obama. When Al Giordano (the writer) claims multiple sources have informed him of something, you can take it to the bank.
And of course both campaigns are going to deny something like that. So, yes, everyone is lying. This is a leak which, by its nature, must be publicly denied.
Oh, and GTP: Thanks so much for the explanation on the whole “He has lied to get where he is” canard.
Leave a Comment