TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
22.04.2008
Goalposts

As Chuck Todd just pointed out on MSNBC, tonight pretty much spells the end of Hillary's chance to win the nomination based on pledged delegates; she'll need to win 70 to 80 percent of pledged delegates from here on out in order to do so, and that's not going to happen. Which, of course, is why Terry McAuliffe was on the very same network arguing that the nomination should be decided by the total number of votes cast. If you count Michigan and Florida (the former of which Hillary once upon a time said didn't count), then she could win there.

--Jason Zengerle 

Posted: Tuesday, April 22, 2008 9:27 PM with 9 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

roidubouloi said:

No one other Hillary and her campaign would consider including in the vote totals the vote in MI where only she was on the ballot -- and even if you did that but only gave her the margin over "other," she still won't catch up in the popular vote total.  

Can no one here count?  Look at the votes remaining to be cast.  Take any optimistic Hillary scenario you want in the remaining races.   It cannot happen.  Once NC is over and Obama is again further ahead than he was yesterday, pre-PA, with very little left to go, it will no longer be possible for Hillary to keep spinning this.  For god's sake, she barely won PA which is about as demographically favorable to her as it gets.

April 22, 2008 9:44 PM

vanwurs said:

A few things come to mind.

It was always true that about 60% of the Democratic primary vote is was likely to be women.  She started out with a base sufficient to actually enforce her nomination if it came into doubt.  And when demographics are king, the biggest tribe wins.

It was said often, at the beginning of this process, that "movements need victories", or they run out of steam.  That would seem to be the case.

And, less early but still at the start of the Pennsylvania election, Ed Rendell made a point of saying publicly that there were a certain number of white Pennsylvanians who would not vote for a black man.  Ed Rendell has won this election.  Do the math.

April 22, 2008 10:05 PM

tnmats said:

Latest polls here in North Carolina have Obama up 10%.  According to the HRC campaign, "every vote must be counted" so how can anyone claim she'll have more votes when the primaries are done?  The vote totals here won't help her in a couple of week, that's for sure.

April 22, 2008 10:18 PM

mcgumbleton said:

And can I just point out something here?? I am so sick of the stupidity of the argument that since Obama didn't win this or that state in the primary he can't win it in the general - why does the media let them get away with that crap?? I know, I know - media = ridiculousness. Honestly, Obama lost MA, NY, CA - does ANYBODY believe any Democrat can't win those three states?? For fuck's sake, *Kerry* won them.

Bill lost MD and NH and Iowa in the 92 primaries and won FL, TX, and Georgia. One guess as to which states he won in the general and which he lost.

The only thing consistent about their spin is its consistent contradictions and moving goal posts. How do they get away with it....

April 22, 2008 10:20 PM

martydenicolo said:

Can somebody please explain to me what happened to the need for Clinton to win by a double digit lead for this to even be considered a real victory?  Last I checked, 72% of the vote was in and she was only ahead by 8%.  This is ridiculous.

April 22, 2008 10:31 PM

tnmats said:

How do they get away with it?  Easy.  CNN/Faux/etc. all need strife to fill air time.  If the primary is over the 'fun' stops for the 24/7 cable outlets.  They need something to fill airtime.

April 22, 2008 10:41 PM

thetraytiger said:

Popular vote tallies are not even remotely legitimate measures of support.  How can those numbers mean anything when the process varies so much state-by-state?

(1) Open vs. closed primaries

(2) Caucus vs. primary vs. primary-caucus hybrid

(3) States that don't count caucus turnout

It boggles the mind really.  The nomination is about delegates, plain and simple. You don't change the rules in the 4th quarter because you're down 10 points.

April 22, 2008 11:14 PM

lymon1 said:

No, total votes is the best measure.   Most caucus states reported total votes and the 4 exceptions can be fairly estimated.  Delagate selection is heavily gerrymandered (though it beats the GOP's winner-take-all method) and the caucuses' lack of secret balloting and deterrance to anyone who has a hard time making a prime-time schedule make them lacking as well.  Now if that process produces a winner, well, dem the rules (no, I can't resist an easy pun!) but otherwise the party of 2000/Gore Got More/Count Every Vote should go with the total votes, not rubberstamp the delagate count.

There is no valid way to consider Michigan's votes in a total vote analysis.  You can make an argument either way for Florida.

Lord help us if there's some 20 point victory and huge turnout in Puerto Rico for Hillary and *that's* what puts her over the top in total votes.  

April 23, 2008 11:01 AM

Ghost in the Machine said:

Well, I'm sure you watched it too. But, anyway, to recap: In tonight's big contest, the two race horses started...

April 23, 2008 2:59 PM