When your "last, best" just isn't good enough...
Hillary recent wrote to the remaining uncommitted “automatic delegates,” making her case for them to support her effort to be the nominee of the party. The letter and memo reveal a great deal about the view from inside Hillaryland. Let’s take a look at her arguments for choosing her as the Democratic nominee and see what they show.
I. Hillary Clinton Will Lead in the Popular Vote for the Democratic Nomination
Not even close to true in any meaningful sense. You see, the way this number is concocted is so convoluted that it is, frankly, kind of embarrassing that a presidential candidate would resort to using it. In order for Hillary to have the lead in the popular vote, you have to include the out-of-order election in Florida and the Soviet-style one-name-only election in Michigan. Then you have to exclude the results of four other states that conduct caucuses and then do not release official numbers for candidates — just the resulting delegate spilts. Each of these states went for Obama.
Even if you count the results of Florida and then toss in, at full value, the very suspect results of Michigan (is it an election if your opponent isn’t even on the ballot?), you have to exclude those caucus states in order for Hillary to pull ahead. Otherwise, Obama remains ahead by something like 85,000 votes.
II. Hillary has put Together a Winning Coalition of Democratic Primary Voters.
Really? To my way of thinking, the single most important characteristic of a winning coalition is that it wins.
A continuing problem that the Clinton camp has is trying to argue the general election metrics based on the primary election exit polling. This is kind of like predicting what will happen in the Super Bowl based on the results of the World Series. The coalition that Clinton references (Lantios, seniors, women and the working-class) is basically the Democratic base. A non-trivial portion of those voters are going to pull the ‘D’ lever in the end regardless of the person at the head of the ticket.
Obama’s coalition of new voters, independents, progressives, and digusted Republicans is somewhat more interesting because it isn’t the usual suspects for the Democratic party.
If it were the case that all those who vote Clinton in the primary would vote McCain in the General if Obama is the nominee, I would agree with Clinton on this point. As it is, it is at best a fatuous argument and at worst an intentionally deceptive one.
III. Hillary Clinton Has Brought More New Voters into the Process than any Other Candidate
On this one, I simply call bullshit.
It is true that more people have been registered as Democrats during this primary season than any other. But every available objective and subjective indicator shows this to be as a result of the unique qualities of the Obama campaign. The “newly registered” and “new democrat” votes have pretty consistently broken for Obama.
So, the Hillary argument becomes that more people have voted — period — this season than ever before. That’s true. Late primaries have been unexpectedly meaningful and people have voted in them because it made a difference. But this isn’t really about Hillary — unless she wants credit for being blind to the facts that have been pretty obvious since Super Tuesday. It’s more about the fact that the DNC designed a primary process that doesn’t make it easy to get a quick win when the field narrows to two candidates.
IV. The road to Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Ohio and Florida – Hillary is winning those states.
Well, this one is sort of true. If you are fighting the last two elections, they did indeed come down to Florida and Ohio. However, if you are looking at this election, it appears that Florida and Ohio aren’t as key. Obama appears to have widened the Democratic map, bringing in states like Colorado that otherwise flow Republican.
More important, however, is the fact that Hillary has such high negatives. She is seen as untrustworthy by more people than not. She has baggage. And if the primary suggests anything, it is that overtime she loses ground whereas Obama tends to gain ground — slowly, but steadily, as time goes on.
And, again, you have to assume that current polls will, in fact, be the end result in November for this to hold true. You have to believe that nothing McCain or Obama does will matter once Hillary leaves the field.
The current electoral map shows Hillary has a clear path to victory and is leading Senator McCain in electoral votes.
True.
Also true? Obama is also beating McCain. And Obama’s measure of victory has been growing as the American people get to know him. And Hillary? Well, her margin has been slowly shrinking as her… issues become more obvious.
In fact, Obama puts more states into play than Hillary, a fact that will help “down ticket” Democrats.
In summary, the case Hillary makes is dishonest, deceptive, and mostly untrue. But then, have we come to expect anything else?