NYTimes.com: Using New Math, Clinton Contends She’s Ahead
“I’m very proud that, as of today, I have received more votes by the people who have voted than anybody else,” Mrs. Clinton said on Wednesday in a campaign appearance in Indianapolis. “It’s a very close race, but if you count — as I count — the 2.3 million people who voted in Michigan and Florida, then we are going to build on that.”
Repeat after me. All the candidates agreed that these states wouldn’t count. But now in Hillary’s desperation, she wants these states counted. How can Michigan possibly count if Hillary’s the only one on the ballot?
She is politics at its worst.
I guess Newt Gingrich’s mom was right all those years ago when Connie Chung interviewed her …
I think she is not counting the States that picked delegates by caucuses, because they don’t have a voter tally.
You’re right. Hillary selects voter tally because that’s the only way she can incorporate Florida and discount all the caucus states that she lost. The fact that she needs to count Michigan where Obama wasn’t on the ballot shows how far she’ll go.
I had actually forgotten about the Newt Gingrich/Connie Chung dustup over Hillary Clinton. Kind of a funny flashback.
Clinton’s arguments are pathetic. We don’t measure who won by popular vote because all the states have various election rules (primary/caucus, winner-take-all/proportionate). The states decide how they want their elections set up. Delegates are how we take all these various rules and quantify who won/lost. That’s just the current system we have. End of story.
Now, trying to justify superdelegates? That’s another story …