![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reporters, make up your minds!
Mar. 5th, 2008 05:43 amEver notice that whenever Obama wins, the narrative is about the importance of garnering as many wins as possible. (I am so sick of hearing about 11 wins in a row. The pattern of wins and losses is not how we determine a presidential candidate.) However, whenever Clinton wins, the narrative is about the importance of the delegate count? (The media makes Obama's edge in the delegate count sound simultaneously slim and practically unsurrmountable. Neat trick. However, like Team Obama, I also think the delegate count is what is most important.)
Obviously, both candidates poll well enough to receive delegates without having to win a state. But a weird side effect of this media coverage is that unless Hillary wins, we never hear that she's received any delegates. The race sounds like a blow out every time Obama wins, and it sounds like a tight horse race every time Clinton wins. The Boston Globe estimates Obama's lead to be "more than 100." I read this as "between 100 and 200." Given all the talk of the string of wins, that barely got a mention... until it was Clinton's turn to win a state. (When the press had mentioned it before, it was in the context of "should Clinton win Texas, and Ohio...")
I don't think it's intentional skewing. It is odd though.
Of course, the narrative now is about how Clinton will capitulate on states between now and PA. So, we should expect to hear about Obama's impressive string of victories until about mid-April. Then, the press will focus on how many delegates separate Clinton and Obama again. As long as they both poll as they have, it's hard for Hillary to narrow the gap, but it's just as hard for Obama to put her away.
(In any case, as long as we're talking about the delegates, I worry that it's going to come down to FL and MI. It's a tricky situation. On one hand, you can talk about following the rules and how the Democratic political organizations in those states ought to be punished for not following the rules. On the other hand, you can talk about disenfranchising the voters in those states. It's unfortunate that it seems the only way to punish those political organizations is to disenfranchise the voters.
I take the vaguely heretical position that the FL poll may actually represent the will of the Florida voters. All the viable candidates of the time were on the ballot. They all made "fund raising", not campaign, stops in Florida. They all bought air time on stations that, while not physically in Florida, air in Florida.
Michigan is more troubling. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot. (I note that CNN gives MI results for Clinton, uncommitted, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel though.) However, plenty of people voted for uncommitted. 55% vs 40% IIRC, Obama and others were encouraging people to do so. But would 55% of Michigan voters have voted for Clinton if Obama et al. were on the ballot? I don't know. On one hand, 55% seems to be about as much as Clinton polls whenever she does win. On the other hand, had there been another candidate, that poll wouldn't have had that air of inevitability. On the third hand, you must really care about voting if you vote freely and you think your best choice is uncommited. Over 200000 people went to the polls to vote uncommitted.
How ever they resolve this, they need to find some way of punishing the political organizations without disenfranchising the voters at the same time. Those political organizations ought to suffer some consequences. The voters in those states shouldn't though. All they did was show up to vote.)
Obviously, both candidates poll well enough to receive delegates without having to win a state. But a weird side effect of this media coverage is that unless Hillary wins, we never hear that she's received any delegates. The race sounds like a blow out every time Obama wins, and it sounds like a tight horse race every time Clinton wins. The Boston Globe estimates Obama's lead to be "more than 100." I read this as "between 100 and 200." Given all the talk of the string of wins, that barely got a mention... until it was Clinton's turn to win a state. (When the press had mentioned it before, it was in the context of "should Clinton win Texas, and Ohio...")
I don't think it's intentional skewing. It is odd though.
Of course, the narrative now is about how Clinton will capitulate on states between now and PA. So, we should expect to hear about Obama's impressive string of victories until about mid-April. Then, the press will focus on how many delegates separate Clinton and Obama again. As long as they both poll as they have, it's hard for Hillary to narrow the gap, but it's just as hard for Obama to put her away.
(In any case, as long as we're talking about the delegates, I worry that it's going to come down to FL and MI. It's a tricky situation. On one hand, you can talk about following the rules and how the Democratic political organizations in those states ought to be punished for not following the rules. On the other hand, you can talk about disenfranchising the voters in those states. It's unfortunate that it seems the only way to punish those political organizations is to disenfranchise the voters.
I take the vaguely heretical position that the FL poll may actually represent the will of the Florida voters. All the viable candidates of the time were on the ballot. They all made "fund raising", not campaign, stops in Florida. They all bought air time on stations that, while not physically in Florida, air in Florida.
Michigan is more troubling. Clinton was the only candidate on the ballot. (I note that CNN gives MI results for Clinton, uncommitted, Kucinich, Dodd, and Gravel though.) However, plenty of people voted for uncommitted. 55% vs 40% IIRC, Obama and others were encouraging people to do so. But would 55% of Michigan voters have voted for Clinton if Obama et al. were on the ballot? I don't know. On one hand, 55% seems to be about as much as Clinton polls whenever she does win. On the other hand, had there been another candidate, that poll wouldn't have had that air of inevitability. On the third hand, you must really care about voting if you vote freely and you think your best choice is uncommited. Over 200000 people went to the polls to vote uncommitted.
How ever they resolve this, they need to find some way of punishing the political organizations without disenfranchising the voters at the same time. Those political organizations ought to suffer some consequences. The voters in those states shouldn't though. All they did was show up to vote.)
