|
Edited on Thu Mar-27-08 11:52 AM by woolldog
The Clintons have been floating this argument recently, implying that if we were choosing the nominee by the electoral votes of states won, Hillary would be ahead right now.
The big problem I see with that is that if those were the rules, if the nominee were chosen according to the electoral votes of the states won, then Obama wouldn't have followed the strategy that he has so far. He would've devised a different strategy!
Obama's strategy was tailor made to extract the most delegates, because that's how the nomination race is decided and how it's always been decided. That's why he focused on small states. That's why he focused on "running up the score" in caucus states. That's why he followed a 50-state strategy, while Clinton focussed on the big states and ignored so many others.
To switch metrics towards the end of the race because that metric no longer favors you is dishonest. It also punishes Obama for running his campaign in a way that the rules intended. Obama seems to have gotten the point behind the rules. Clinton, in complaining about how she's ahead in electoral votes and "big states" obviously hasn't.
|