Technology with attitude

The New, New, New Metric For Hillary Victory

28

You ready for this one? Because it’s really good. Okay, here we go…

Superdelegates shouldn’t make up their mind because of pledged delegates. They should make up their mind based on how many electoral college votes the states each candidate has won.

That coming from the man who wants to be Hillary’s VP, Evan Bayh.

From NY Times:

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

Let’s just set aside the fact that Obama has won vastly more states than Hillary and instead focus on the completely intellectually dishonest “big states matter, small ones don’t” strategy.

Fact: Bill Clinton won the first contest because Ross Perot changed the electoral map and he won the second contest because he was able to maintain essentially the same electoral vote total.

Bill Clinton – 1992:

Bill Clinton – 1996:

Long story short, Clinton got lucky the first time and folks were happy with him the second time. The Dems didn’t all of a sudden tap into the psyche of big states. They were simply able to capture them because of where the country was. So the idea that these big states are somehow easier for Dems to win is simply false.

Even JFK and Carter had completely different electoral maps as the ones we claim are the Dem strongholds today.

JFK – 1960:

Carter – 1976:

Let’s remember Gore in 2000, who tried to stick to supposed Dem strongholds. But Florida has never been reliably Democratic. Carter caught it in ’76 and Clinton in ’96, but the Dems haven’t been able to win it since.

I guess my question is would the media tolerate this type of goalpost moving from anybody but Hillary? And why is the Dem establishment accepting it when they’ve NEVER seen the big state strategy succeed? It just doesn’t make any sense.

Moving on…