Hillary Clintons chances of getting the Democratic nomination get thinner by the day, however today may give her a much needed boost heading in to the home stretch of this farce of an ‘electoral’ process as the DNC meets to rectify the issue of Florida and Michigan. I personally believe it is unthinkable that the results of the Florida and Michigan ballots should not stand and am amazed that it requires this much rigmarole. In other words, by sanctioning the ignorant view that rules come before votes, the DNC would be ignoring the will of around 5 million people. Obama was on the ballot in Florida and he chose not to stand in Michigan, either way he lost decisively in both. Clinton deserves her delegates even if it doesn’t change the overall outcome. This whole situation is even more ridiculous when one takes in to account the fact that the Florida ballot date was moved forward by a republican legislature! So why should the Democrats be punished?
I now want to make a few comments about the nominating process itself. I believe there is rumour that the Clinton campaign is rightly drawing up a legal case to challenge the legitimacy of the entire Nomination Process. At the core of this is a furious attack on the caucus system. So far 34 states have held primaries and fifteen have held caucuses. Obama owes all his delegate lead to his victories in the caucuses (excluding them the Obama/Clinton split is just 1,373/1,353 or 1,447/1,466 including Florida – a spread of less than 0.1%).
As I have mentioned on countless occasions the system is deeply flawed and Obama’s ‘lead’ is hugely misleading. The caucuses are over-represented and undemocratic. Caucuses are not elections, they are small gatherings of activists, which reach a consensus on which candidate to support. It is not always known how many people take part in caucuses but more often that not the number is minute. Based on official figures and estimates around 1 million people voted in caucuses, 32.9 million have voted so far in Primaries. Clinton has consistently performed better in primaries and Obama in caucuses. Caucus voters make up 2.9% of the total yet account for 14% of pledged delegates….this for me is an interesting version of democracy.
I believe the whole nomination process has been an absolute farce and whilst it looks like Hillary Clinton will be the victim of this flawed system I certainly hope she is the last. It is interesting though that even with this farce of a system Barack Obama still only leads Clinton by around 3%. Hardly decisive. If the Democrats had an accurate and fair nomination process I’m sure the result would be decisive and tipped hugely in Clintons favour.The final point I shall make (for the final time) is that if Democracy, not maths, really counts for anything HILLARY CLINTON WILL BE THE NOMINEE!!!!!! I am saying this as someone who is more inclined to support the Republicans but who can easily see Hillary Clinton is the more appealing candidate even including McCain!
This election should be a straight run for the Democrats but an Obama candidacy would make it much more difficult. Hillary Clinton is the best candidate to beat John McCain. Her Primary victories in key big swing states including New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, California, Ohio and Massachussetts are indicators of this fact. The warped system the Democrats call the nomination process has produced flawed results, and the media campaign has been disgraceful. I was particularly amused to see that Rupert Murdoch has endorsed Obama, and if anyone really believes that this is a man ‘who desires change’ then think again! He has made a tactical decision, his papers including the New York Post have come out in support of him not because he is the stronger candidate but because he is the weaker candidate.
Clinton leads in the big states, she leads in the primary results, she can win over Republicans and ultimately when ALL votes are counted she leads in the popular vote. She should be the nominee… but she wont be and the Democrats will rue the day and I’m sure it will be a feeling of deja-vu (the stolen election of 2000).