It was the TeeVee.
Again.
After warning us, briefly, that a state’s winner meant much less than the delegate count, and that a candidate could win the popular vote but not win a lot of delegates, the Idiots on the Box proceeded to ignore this all night and "call" states or describe them as "too close to call."
Why? Because it was fun. Because it was dramatic. But it was irrelevant.
Not once did I hear someone say that if a state was close the delegates would be split narrowly so the actual result was of only minor interest. Instead a three point win in Connecticut was a major triumph, no different than a 20 point loss. That’s pure nonsense, a lie.
What I was loking for was the margin in each state, and where that margin lay, because that would determine the delegate count.
In the end the Democratic race was a draw. Clinton won 20 more delegates than Obama. The "superdelegates" should not be apportioned at all, because they are free to change their mind. Most likely they’ll make the final choice. Hopefully it will be based on whom they think has the best chance of winning. But, again, you didn’t hear any of that on the TeeVee.
The most important numbers related to turnout. Republicans out-voted Democrats in only a very few states, most notably Arizona and Alabama. In many states the total Republican vote was less than that of the Democratic loser. CNN was kind enough to show state results side-by-side on their crawl so you could learn this. MSNBC, to its shame, didn’t.
On the Republican side McCain is the nominee, but he’s got the smell
of Hubert Humphrey about him, and Republicans who are being honest with
themselves know this. Just as the Democrats did in the last crisis
period Republicans are dividing into their various tribes, and it’s the
neocons, the foreign policy conservatives, who will top the ticket.
Anyone who thinks Republicans will keep the White House by touting success in Iraq needs to be pulled over for TUI — thinking under the influence.
Did you see any of this on the TeeVee? I didn’t. I saw a lot of
gasbags obsessing over the past or proclaiming "the future" without
explaining what they meant. I saw a lot of people jumping up and down,
a lot of candidates promising to keep fighting. And I heard a lot of
bullshit from their spokesclones. I got a lot of drama but none of the
story.
If you were smart, you watched the basketball. You think Don Imus got an Epiphanny? And at least at UConn a close loss is a loss, not a draw.
UPDATE: The idiocy continues. How can MSNBC claim there’s disarray on the Democratic side and clarity on the Republican, when the Democrats say they agree on the issue but the differences among Republicans are so stark? Haven’t they gotten the e-mail? No Democrat is issuing any threat like this, and Richard Viguerie is not alone. Far from it. Oh, Republicans have to win independents to win elections, and independents are voting in droves for Democrats across-the-board. This story is Ernest Goes to Camp dumb.
Nice post. I completely agree. But you’re mistaken about the net gain in delegates. Obama came out ahead by 13:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=509
Nice post. I completely agree. But you’re mistaken about the net gain in delegates. Obama came out ahead by 13:
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=509
I flipped around quite a bit and I found PBS’s coverage to be by far the best (maybe it was the lack of commercials that made it more watchable?). Even they seemed to constantly forget that some states were proportional and others winner take all, despite occasionally mentioning it. How hard would it have been to just keep a running tally of estimated delegates based on results? I’m suspicious that the real problem is that most journalist types (especially political journalists) hate math and that they found it easier to harp on lynch-pin states rather than try and keep up with delegate tallies. The funniest part was right at the end of the coverage, a few states started coming back with late results that contradicted the earlier “calls”, invalidating the talking points of the last hour. Will these people ever learn? The evidence points to no.
I flipped around quite a bit and I found PBS’s coverage to be by far the best (maybe it was the lack of commercials that made it more watchable?). Even they seemed to constantly forget that some states were proportional and others winner take all, despite occasionally mentioning it. How hard would it have been to just keep a running tally of estimated delegates based on results? I’m suspicious that the real problem is that most journalist types (especially political journalists) hate math and that they found it easier to harp on lynch-pin states rather than try and keep up with delegate tallies. The funniest part was right at the end of the coverage, a few states started coming back with late results that contradicted the earlier “calls”, invalidating the talking points of the last hour. Will these people ever learn? The evidence points to no.