Clinton Backer Points to Electoral College Votes as New Measure

[kinggovernor]

March 24, 2008
Clinton Backer Points to Electoral College Votes as New Measure
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
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.”

He said he would also factor in electability and momentum, then added: “But ultimately, you know, if you look at the aggregate popular vote, and as we all recall in 2000, to our, as Democrats, great sorrow, we do elect presidents based upon the Electoral College.”

The Clinton camp has argued that Mrs. Clinton’s having won the big states should be an important factor when considering her electability.

“Presidential elections are decided on electoral votes,” a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said in an e-mail message.

But Mr. Wolfson said superdelegates would also be looking at the popular vote when determining which candidate to support.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said that the idea of using the Electoral College as a metric was specious because the Democratic nominee, regardless of whom it was, would almost certainly win California and New York.

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.”

They oppose the electoral college when it hurts them in 2000 but when it is a last-gasp straw in 2008, it should be the metric. I am totally confused why the party hasn't completely turned on Hillary and her campaign yet.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

They oppose the electoral college when it hurts them in 2000 but when it is a last-gasp straw in 2008, it should be the metric. I am totally confused why the party hasn't completely turned on Hillary and her campaign yet.

This is the most stupid thing they've got going. Hillary has been saying this regarding "big states." It's nothing more than rhetoric and I personally find it quite pathetic. A primary matchup between two Democrats has no bearing on how the nation would vote in a national election. Many of those states have closed primaries among other things that skew these results in a national election and none of them show how either candidate would fair against McCain. It is just not conclusive of how people vote in November. I mean seriously, let's see if Hillary can win some of these states after the black vote doesn't turn out from feeing disenfranchised.

Hillary beating Obama or Obama beating Hillary in state X doesn't mean that candidate will do better against the other Democrat would against McCain in a national election.

This argument is about as stupid as Obama supporters saying Obama has won more states. Only two things should REALLY matter... delegates and popular votes. Something that should be considered, but less important, is who has a better chance of winning in a national election. Hillary still has an ounce of a chance of winning the popular vote, but if Florida and Michigan don't have a new vote it will be even more difficult for her. That's really all that should matter. You can throw in how you think someone would do in a national election, but that's purely subjective. And although Obama is leading Hillary in just about every poll against McCain, I don't think that's necessarily a valid means of deciding the upcoming candidate. The Democratic party is already starting to implode. We have Pelosi saying one thing Bayh saying other this week. Everyone is pitted against each other. I have a feeling this is only going to get worse.

[WickedLou9]

The way I see it, the GOP wants to run against Hillary, McCain might be able to beat her. They are afraid of Obama, when it comes down to it, Obama will probably beat McCain even if polls now are questionable. We should give them Obama.

[Thorgrim]

I can't believe after the Rev. Wright/Iran-AlQaeda stories going on...and seeing what happened, you for a minute trust the media to spin this in Obama's favor, which is what he needs

When the Wright tapes were playing on NEWS channels, Obama saw his popularity hit new lows, imagine when it's on every channel, and the media is protecting their St. McCain

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

The way I see it, the GOP wants to run against Hillary, McCain might be able to beat her. They are afraid of Obama, when it comes down to it, Obama will probably beat McCain even if polls now are questionable. We should give them Obama.

I think a McCain-Obama race is the best race for this country.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I can't believe after the Rev. Wright/Iran-AlQaeda stories going on...and seeing what happened, you for a minute trust the media to spin this in Obama's favor, which is what he needs

When the Wright tapes were playing on NEWS channels, Obama saw his popularity hit new lows, imagine when it's on every channel, and the media is protecting their St. McCain

Won't all that be forgotten this week as the video plays all over the place of Hillary smiling and reading poetry with children when she claims she was ducking sniper fire?

She got caught in a pretty big lie. I think that's going to hurt a hell of a lot more than only being associated with an hot tempered idiot.

[David Octavius]

Political Punch

In Monday's ed board meeting with the Philadelphia Daily News, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was asked about the basic math obstructing her path to the nomination.

Specifically, she was asked her plans if, come June, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., remains in the lead with pledged delegates, how she would try to convince superdelegates to give her the nomination if Obama does end up the choice of primary voters and caucus goers?

"I just don't think this is over yet," she said, "and I don't think that it is smart for us to take a position that might disadvantage us in November. And also remember that pledged delegates in most states are not pledged. You know, there is no requirement that anybody vote for anybody. They're just like superdelegates."

Yet again, putting herself above the party and above the people - not the type of leader I want



This part was funny to me:

Clinton campaign deputy communications director Phil Singer then added: "We are not seeking or asking pledged delegates for Sen. Obama to flip over . . . We are not engaged in any efforts (to flip Obama delegates)."

Is the Clinton campaign's continual reminder to voters (and delegates) that they're allowed to flip not an effort?

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by Phantom

Won't all that be forgotten this week as the video plays all over the place of Hillary smiling and reading poetry with children when she claims she was ducking sniper fire?

She got caught in a pretty big lie. I think that's going to hurt a hell of a lot more than only being associated with an hot tempered idiot.

People expect politicians to lie and call it a mistatement...common

Wright's tapes being played in a loop...ugh

Consider: the "dean scream" from 2004 vs. Bush lying about WMD

Which one got more attention? How unfair is life?