I was working on this diary with ABC news on earlier. And heard their Political Director Mark Halperin say: "Obama has won more delegates, but Hillary has won more states."
Say WHAT?!?!
Those underlings in Alice in Wonderland painting the the white roses red (to please the Queen) popped to mind.
When I check the primary results, I see that Hillary has won 12 states outright: MA, RI, NH, NY, NJ, OH, CA, NM, AZ, TN, AR, OK. Texas and Nevada were split decisions (with Obama winning the delegate count), and Florida and Michigan were stripped of delegates. If you give all four of those to Hillary, she's still only got 16. Obama's got 25, and there's 9 which haven't voted yet. (Obama won 3 of 4 non-state contests, with PR yet to vote.)
This guy, Halperin, gets paid good money to inform the public. Is it too much to ask that he report the facts? Not get it completely wrong? Anyhow, I needed to get that little grievance off my chest. Back to your regularly scheduled diary down the rabbit hole.
When the thirteen colonies first united to form the United States of America, there were some thorny questions about how our representative government would be formed. And, from the beginning, it's always been true that some people, and some states, are more equal than others.
Delaware and New York get equal representation in the U.S. Senate. Only white male property owners got to vote, but their House districts were drawn on the basis of the Census (with black slaves counting as 3/5 of a person, and Indians not counting at all). With Constitutional amendments over the years, some of those inequalities have been eliminated. But not all of them.
To this day, in our legislative branch, and in the distribution of electoral votes in Presidential elections, the smaller states have some extra clout relative to their population. Furthermore, states have a lot of authority in setting procedures for allocating their delegates to party nominating conventions.
Hillary Clinton has been speechifying of late about why she thinks caucus procedures are "unfair". She objects that there's no absentee ballots for seniors or people who are working at the time of the meeting. First, it was to be a pro forma campaign season, with all the other candidates stepping aside in favor of Hillary by Super Tuesday or shortly thereafter. Now, of course, it wouldn't be fair to cut it short without allowing the voters in Pennsylvania to have their say. The constant rearrangement of the goal posts reminds me, more than anything, of Alice's encounters with the Red Queen. ("We have jam every other day. Yesterday. Tomorrow. But never today.")
Another side of the argument is that caucuses showcase a candidate's ability to build an organization. A field operation. Whatever your take on 'em, the states, in our decentralized states' rights system, set their own procedures, and they are the law of the land. Though sometimes there's dustups between the parties and the states (i.e. Michigan and Florida).
The Party has rules, put together and voted on by a bunch of people. The states and state parties then proceed as they choose (so long as they are within the national rules.) Wyoming has caucuses. New Hampshire allows voting across party lines. Wisconsin allows voter registration on the day of the primary; Pennsylvania is Democrats only, and you have to be registered a month ahead of time. Texas has primary and caucus components. There's requirements as to how to get one's name on the ballot, too (and that might yet get John McCain in trouble...) No matter what the system, they're all equally legitimate. A good campaign learns all the rules, and makes the most of them. Works 'em to their advantage.
And, nationally, the way you win the nomination is via delegates. They all must be won by the separate rules in the separate states. (And the states must comply with the national rules.) And so, Hillary Clinton had some modest margin in the popular vote in Texas (and in Nevada, but those waters were muddied by the doors being locked early). But Texas weights delegate allocation according to how many Democratic votes the area has produced in recent years, and also according to how much time voters are willing to dedicate to the process (i.e. caucuses for part of the vote).
According to the rules in Texas, Obama fulfilled the requirements to win delegates such that he came out ahead. Those same rules have been in place for four decades, even if they did make grown men in the Clinton Administration cry. Others have managed well enough to follow them, and to organize and train supporters to follow them, difficult though they be.
HILLARY WON TEXAS?
The TV news people say that several times every hour. Not split decision, no mention that Obama actually won the delegate count. And they've known - or should know, considering they're getting paid to know - that is the case. Yet they continue to repeat the Clinton campaign press releases almost as regularly and unconsciously as they breathe in and breathe out.
I understand that Clinton's not doing so well on gathering delegates as is Obama. So it makes sense that her team would concoct the story that momentum is what counts. Or big states. Or just Ohio. Like this is the regular season, and the superdelegates are the playoffs. But the whole season is counted in the final tally.
Yet, in the news, what we hear - over and over and over again - is that Hillary "won" Texas. And like Halperin just said about the number of states won. Just plain wrong. PA Gov. Rendell says Hillary's won states containing greater population. He's got it more right than the "objective" reporter, and he's an unabashed partisan. But Rendell still tap dances around the question of delegates, and all sorts of other stuff, too.
NEW MEXICO CONGRESS 2006
Back in November 2006, New Mexico voted on three members of the US Congress for the state's three districts. Here's the results:
CD1: Wilson(R) - 105,986; Madrid - 105,125; others - 0
CD2: Pearce(R) - 92,620; Kissling - 63,119; others - 135
CD3: Udall(D) - 144,880; (forgettable republican) - 49,219; others - 0
Totals:
Dem - 313,124 (56%)
GOP - 247,825 (44%)
Other - 135 (0%)
That's right. Dems got a double digits lead on votes cast in the state, yet won only one out of three seats. We had a Republican Governor after the 2000 Census, and it meant a redistricting that could have produced three Dem seats under different circumstances, but instead yielded only one.
That's how it goes. This year, there's a pretty good chance to turn NM-01. Less so for NM-02. But after the next Census in 2010, Diane Denish(D) is highly likely to be Governor. At that time, we may be able to redistrict such that the Dems can take all three seats.
Meanwhile, it's irksome and annoying when reporter after reporter throws out Clinton campaign talking points. And flat out ignore the facts. I saw John Decker of Reuters do the same kind of thing yesterday (on CNN). Mark Halperin is ABC News Political director fer chrissakes! He gets paid good money to inform the public about what's going on. Is it really too much to expect him to get simple facts like the number of states in each candidate's column right?
And, no matter what anyone says, it's Obama who won more delegates in Texas. Delegates are what's needed to win the nomination. So, could someone please explain to me why the news keeps repeating, over and over, that "Hillary won Texas"?? Did I miss something?