So, we have this whole huge furor over Hillary's dredging up RFK's assassination in June as justification for her remaining in the race. How virulently you react to the remark is merely a product of whether you're viewing the "assassination" part or the "June" part as her primary justification.
But what's getting lost in all of this is the underlying assertion Hillary was (poorly) trying to make: that there is historical precedent from both 1968 and 1992 for competitive nomination contests that lasted into June, and therefore, she has justification for staying in the race this late.
Problem is: her comparisons are wrong anyway.
More below.
First off, let's take the tragic election of 1968. It's worth noting that back in 1968, only 13 states held primaries. The primary calendar got started much later than it does today, and lasted from March 12 until June 11. The most important day of those primaries was June 4, the day on which California, New Jersey and South Dakota held their primaries. Another important state, Illinois, wrapped up the primary contests a week after that.
So, no frikkin' duh that 1968 was still a contested primary until June. Not that it really mattered--Hubert Humphrey swamped Eugene McCarthy in the non-primary states anyway, and took the nomination in a landslide on the first ballot.
Now let's take Hillary's husband's election in 1992--the other one that she claims lasted until June. Let's take a look at the final delegate count from that race:
Bill Clinton 3372
Jerry Brown 596
Paul Tsongas 289
Penn. Gov. Robert P. Casey 10
Rep. Pat Schroeder 5
Larry Agran 3
Al Gore 1
The full story here is that Paul Tsongas dropped out on March 17 after taking a weak third place in the Michigan primary. Jerry Brown stayed a threat essentially until April 7, the day of the Wisconsin and New York primaries, but made a gaffe that severely damaged his chances with Jewish voters and put him essentially out of the running.
The only last, desperate chance that Brown had to throw Clinton off his game was...Brown's home state of California, which voted in early June.
Two things to note here: first, Clinton's lead, both in delegate count and in media discussion of the race, was so large as to be deemed essentially insurmountable. So first of all, it's questionable to argue whether or not June mattered. But even if you do argue that June mattered, the only reason it did is because:
- 1. California voted in June; and
- 2. California was Jerry Brown's home state, which gave him a shot at doing something there that he otherwise wouldn't have had.
Now, to me, this seems like a far cry from the situation we're in right now, where only Montana, South Dakota and Puerto Rico haven't had their say and one candidate has already wrapped up a majority of pledged delegates from the contests that both candidates originally agreed would count.
The bottom line is this: Hillary Clinton was trying to use the 1968 and 1992 primaries as justification for her staying the race this late. Problem is, she not only did so in the most offensive way possible, but her comparisons were completely inaccurate--and she knows it.
And I'd like to see less reporting of her insensitive gaffe, and more reporting of the fact that the last justifications Hillary has for staying in the race are basically fabricated out of whole cloth.