Subscribe by RSS
Following her victory in Puerto Rico, Clinton delivered a speech containing some strong words for detractors and anyone calling for her to drop this race. Clinton stated plainly that she has the popular vote lead with the addition of Michigan, Florida, and now Puerto Rico. Not only that, she is also insisting that this race should come down to the superdelegates deciding the nominee at the convention. Furthermore, she marginalized Obama’s “slight” pledged delegate lead, as she called it.
This speech did not sound like someone ready to give up in June, rather it sounded like someone who has not accepted the probability that Obama is the assumed democratic nominee.
Here is the video of her statements:
Transcript of the important part:
“More people have voted for us than any candidate in the history of presidential primaries. There is no doubt. We are winning the popular vote. The people have spoken.
We are winning the battleground states. She lists them all. Adds Michigan and Florida. You have spoken.
I hope by my second term, regardless of what you decide about the status option, you too will be able to vote for President.
When voting ends on Tuesday, neither Obama nor I will have the necessary delegate number. He will have a slight lead in pledged delegates, I lead in the popular vote. Then it is up to the superdelegates. Which candidate represents the will of the people who have voted in this historic election? Which candidate is best able to lead us to victory in November and is which is best able to lead the US as a nation in the face of challenges at home and abroad.
We are winning the popular vote because we have stood for the core principles of our party.
We are beating John McCain in the key states. We can get the 270 electoral votes to win in November. The voters know who is ready to lead on day 1, who has the experience and knowledge to be President.”
She is actively advocating for the superdelegates to hand her the nomination at the convention since Michigan and Florida are now in play.
Now take a look at this ad running in South Dakota and Montana:
That “17 million” number is counting Michigan and Florida so technically it’s disputable. Yes, voters did cast votes for Hillary Clinton in Michigan but weren’t given the opportunity to cast votes for Obama since his name wasn’t on the ballot.
Despite the rumors of bowing out gracefully in a week or two, it doesn’t appear Hillary is ready to drop this nomination process anytime soon.
We shall see how this develops after South Dakota and Montana on Tuesday.
Visit the You Decide Politics Store »
Loading ...
I like her 17 Million ad! I know that Hillary is in a better position to take on John McCain and win back the White House for Dems!
Popular Vote (taking into account the recent DNC decision) now stands at:
Obama: 17,389,116
Clinton: 17,364,592
So, if she wins Montana and South Dakota won’t she be ahead in the popular vote and have a legitimate claim to the nomination?
Right, just to be clear: that number is counting florida, michigan, puerto rico and not counting a single caucus?
This information is from 5/14/08:
Following her strong victory in West Virginia Hillary Clinton regained her lead in the total popular vote, including Michigan and Florida. From ABC News:
Clinton: 16,691,283
Obama: 16,647,926
Also in Michigan, the pop vote and delegates for “uncommitted” according to Clintonian math does not go to Obama. They are to be left as uncommitted. Even if she does win the popular vote she should not have a legit claim to the nomination. At best she will have a meaningless moral victory because the pop vote does not count.
It is funny to see how facts are being twisted. But hey, that’s politics.
She won Puerto Rico and deserves praise for that. But in my opinion she should not marginalize his pledged delegate lead. He deserves praise for that. We could also marginalize her lead in the popular vote, if we use the same calculations as she did.
She has every right to continue as long as neither candidate reaches the required number of delegates.
Maybe this is not the correct topic to address this but I think Hillary didn’t really care that much about the voters in FL and MI; she just wanted the delegates and be able to claim the popular vote. The result we can see above. But that is not wrong, that’s politics.
Anyway, I don’t think the popular vote matters much, whether Obama is leading or Hillary. I see it like this; the goal was to gain enough delegates from the primaries and caucuses to cross the required number of delegates. Obama is much closer to this number, but he has not reached it yet. The popular vote is not of direct importance here I think. It is about the delegates. And yes that may be a flawed system, but both agreed to participate in this flawed system.
You should look at who did a better job at trying to get the deal done. The facts state that Obama is much closer to the required number of delegates than Hillary. And this is the most important parameter in my opinion.
Obama will reach the number of delegates required to clinch the nomination. Despite the fact that Clinton feels entitled to the nomination, depite her constant whining, she will be el perdedor after the final primaries wrap up. She’s is now essentially being all but ignored by the media, she is being ignored by Obama, and she is being ignored by McCain as well, so I’m not so sure what she thinks she is accomplishing. She may bring this to the convention, but she is running out of political favors, and out of political friends, as well. All she is doing now is ensuring the end of her, and Bill’s, political career.
The argument that I’ve been hearing go back and forth since Super Tuesday is this:
Because Michigan didn’t have Obama or Edwards on the ballot and Hillary essentially won the contest by default, and because all candidates decided to not campaign in Florida, how do we account for their votes, and to what weight do we hold them?
Since her “victory” in Michigan gives her votes that Obama never could have received, she in essence can overcome his popular vote lead. The question then begs the question of which candidate the party should vote for – the one with more pledged and super delegates, or the one with the higher popular vote?
These two issues are part of the flaw and strength that is the election process in the US, and dates back to the founding colonies. Should larger states with larger populations be able to decide the president? Is that really fair? or should we use an electoral college/delegate voting system?
In this case, the DNC decided to allow for delegates to vote for their candidate based on the percentages of voters that voted for their respective candidates.
If one candidate wins the delegates, but not the popular vote, are they the legitimate nominee? If the answer is no, and that only the popular vote should matter, then why even have primaries in the first place? Why even have delegates, super delegates, or campaigning for that matter? Why allot a certain number of delegates to each state? Why bother with the DNC in August? Just have everyone vote on one day and get it over with!
The answer is because there needs to be order. There must be structure to the election of the nominee. Not only that, all candidates must agree to the same election rules and structure in order to run for the nomination. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – the rules are the rules. This is so unfortunate – not only for Hillary, but for her voters. Her “do it my way or the ship sinks” attitude is ridiculous and destructive to the party and to herself.
The fact of the matter stands – whomever reaches 2118 will be the nominee. Sure, she can take it to the convention, but if it’s not decided in her favor, she needs to let it go.
It is clear why Obama practically didn’t campaign in Puerto Rico. Due to Clinton agressive politics, he decided not to dammage the democratic party more then she already did. Obama found oasis, Hillary keeps seeing fata morgana’s at the beginning of the downfall.
Clinton said in january the votes of Michigan and florida wont count for anything.
Beceause she suddenly needs them she is counting them. Dont the Hillary supporters find this really childish?
Frank,
Hillary said herself that most of her supporter base is the “uneducated”. Maybe she is counting on that, and hoping they wont notice that she is treating them like pawns instead of people.
I think that, now, Hillary is the past. Let challenge Mc bush right now. Obama is clearly the future.
The simple fact that Hillary continues to push for a way to sue her way into the November elections should make the very people that voted for her sick.
That precisely what’s going to happen and it’s the only reason she wants Michigan and Florida to be counted for even though if she were in Obama’s shoes she would be fighiting against those states being counted.
Anybody with somewhat of a half a brain should be able to comprehend at this point Hillary is nothing more than a “Say anything, Do anything” candidate. How do you rewrite the rules and expect people not to react or realize what you are up to or what your true intentions and motives are?
The only logical explanation I can come up with for her continuing to push is possibly that she’s setting herself up for some type of land slide victory next election year figuring Obama will lose to McCain in November.
Well, I happen to think she’s simply fighting for the nomination, which is why she decided to throw her hat in the ring to begin with. Now that she has some really strong numbers as leverage the Obama supporters are out in full force crying foul. There is no foul here, they are in a tight race to the finish, and I respect her for hanging in there and not just quitting under pressure. She’s a strong woman and a strong competitor, and you have to respect that.
That being said, frappe, there is no McBush running on either ticket. There’s a John McCain, and he will be the next President.
Are you kidding Babs? After all Hillary’s fuss about wanting to seat the FL and MI delegates, the rules committee met to seat the delegates. And who was making a fuss outside? Her voters! They were protesting the fact that the committee was meeting to seat the delegates!!!!
Great job guys. Fuggin superstars.
I do not think the Obama supporters are crying foul because of her strong numbers. They are crying foul because she is ignoring the rules of most delegates won. She has made up new metrics and possible general election scenarios to convince her supporters and the supers that she is the better candidate. When those tactics start to fail she massages or spins the data to make it work in her favor. I admire someone who fits to the bitter end but how one fits to the end is really a reflection of the person’s character. I am not saying that she should just quit but each day she finds a new and creative way to insult everyone’s intelligence.
This question is for Babs and other supporters of McCain:
Do you feel McCain will win if the ticket is Obama/Clinton?
And for the Hillary supporters:
Do you think it’s right to claim the popular vote when you’re not including the causcuses?
And to my Obama supporters:
Rock the vote and support in any way you can, because proving that Obama is worthy of the presidency starts with how we conduct ourselves as his supporters.
the angry american has a right to be angry. Hillary has openly shown here true face, and it isn’t a pretty one.
If Hillary was winning she’ld be fighting against a recount in Fl and M. It’s so childish! I can’t believe so many Americans buy this crap. Are you all that brainwashed or did you’re I.Q. drop so low during the Bush administration?
She is a typical ’say anything to get elected’ nasty politician. If she stays in after the last primaries she is doing the republicans (Bush) a giant favour.
You Americans were always proud of doing the right thing. Please don’t dissapoint the world.
Michelle, I do feel McCain will win even if the ticket is Obama/Clinton for one reason, and it’s just my personal opinion. If Obama is the nominee I think it’s immaterial who the VP is. As Fred Thompson said, he has no interest in attending funerals overseas. The VP position is a B team position, a title and little else. If you think that I’m wrong please correct me, but I don’t recall any major influence or policy decisions by VPs in history, do you? That being said, if the ticket had Clinton on top McCain wouldn’t win by the wider margin I think he will against Obama. But he would still win. Just my personal opinion.
Good advice to you Obama supporters, kudos on your attitude.
IMHO, Obama/Clinton isn’t a lock for a win. The VP spot is only good for carrying a state in the general election. Clinton does not bring anything extra to the ticket as VP and all she can contribute is a lot of negatives. Same could be said if she was at the top and Obama was being considered as VP. I think both are stronger individually and would fair better if not linked together on a unity ticket. The loser is just better off campaigning for the other. The Dems needs something from the south and neither Obama or Clinton as VP will give them the needed bump.
Now if McCain puts Huckabee on the ticket then it does not matter who the Democratic Party selects.
IndiMinded, yes I know, but no, I’m not kidding. I never said the fight has been fair from either side. I respect her as much as I do Obama in regards to their campaign strategies against each other, which doesn’t say much for either of them. I just said I respect her for hanging in there, and I do.
Babs,
Well, there was Cheney
.
Good point, Michelle, there definitely was Cheney. *LOL*
Obama in your faces! Dumb ass retard republicans!!!!