I'm both fascinated and frustrated with the election process in this country. One such double-edged sword aspect of the election cycle is the seemingly nonstop spin machine. Regardless of who wins or loses in a primary, expect all sides to present the results in the most positive light possible. Even though the concept of spin is inevitable in election years, having followed this primary season so closely, I'm getting a little unnerved by the following examples of spin:
1) "Hillary Clinton has more votes than Donald Trump!"
No, I'm by no means a Donald Trump supporter. In fact, I think I'd vote for a dead squirrel named Lucky over him. However, while this bit of spin may technically be true, it's not a fully accurate comparison. Hillary Clinton has, at the primary's peak, had to square off with four other candidates. On the other side of the political spectrum, Donald Trump has had to deal with as many as sixteen other candidates. So the mathematical odds are certainly in Clinton's favor to have more votes at this point in the race than Trump due to the drastically different number in their opponents. While I'd definitely vote for Clinton over Trump and hope she receives more votes than him in November (if they're the two nominees), the Clinton camp may want to cut it out with this flimsy comparison.
2) "X won/lost Y state in the primary. How are they going to win it in November?"
I've heard this argument used by contributors to just about every campaign, and for the most part, it's ridiculous. Hillary Clinton may have won New York; Bernie Sanders may have won Vermont; Ted Cruz may have won Oklahoma; and Donald Trump may have won Alabama, but guess what? New York and Vermont are going to vote Democrat in November regardless of the candidate, and likewise, Oklahoma and Alabama are going to vote Republican, even if the GOP's candidate happens to be Elmer Fudd. What matters is how the candidates fare in the following states: Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Iowa, and possibly Indiana and Wisconsin. Just because a Republican candidate loses a state in the South in a primary or a Democratic candidate loses in the Northeast isn't going to mean squat come November.
3) "No candidate is going to reach 1,237 delegates...(in the GOP)."
I'm sorry, but what did they expect? Did the RNC really think the odds were in anyone's favor to capture 1,237 delegates when not one, not two, not three, but seventeen Republicans were running for president? Give me a break... This had chaos written on it from the start, the RNC has finally noticed, and is trying to make it sound like no problem at all. Sure, try telling your constituents that if the delegate and vote leader doesn't become the party's nominee...
4) "Clinton's lead is insurmountable if you include superdelegates."
I don't like the concept of superdelegates, but with history being our guide, they tend to go the way of the voters. In 2008, Hillary Clinton started the primary season with the most support among superdelegates, but once it appeared as though Barack Obama was on his way to victory, they switched sides. So, in saying that, I can't stand it when networks show Clinton leading Sanders by the count of 1,930 delegates to 1,189, and failing to mention how many of those delegates are pledged and super (yes, they're all "super," but still...). I wouldn't think it'd be THAT difficult for networks to provide a clearer picture of the race by breaking the delegate numbers down a bit further, so viewers can see Clinton's lead over Sanders in pledged delegates is 1,428 to 1,151, while her lead on him in superdelegates is 502-38.
5) "Kasich should stay in the race because..."
Of the three remaining GOP candidates, I prefer John Kasich. No, that isn't saying much considering his competition is Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, but still... However, there's no rational argument for him to stay in the race, and his supporters sound progressively more ridiculous in defending his decision to do so. Yes, according to hypothetical polls, Kasich fares better against Clinton and Sanders than Cruz or Trump. The problem, though, is the fact the Republican Party has completed 34 primaries and caucuses, John Kasich has won once, and that was his home state of Ohio. For those of you scoring at home, that's a winning percentage of 2.9. I'm sorry, but according to the rules of democracy, John Kasich deserves the nomination about as much as an NBA coach leading a team to a 1-33 record deserves the Coach of the Year award. Let's break it down a little further...
1) Donald Trump: 22 states won (out of 34) = 64.7%
2) Ted Cruz: 10 states won = 29.4%
3) John Kasich (tied): 1 state won = 2.9%
3) Marco Rubio (tied): 1 state won = 2.9%
5-17) All other candidates: 0 states won = 0.0%
Even if Kasich wins the sixteen remaining states (and that's not going to happen), he'd still finish five states short of Trump. For as much as I'd prefer John Kasich as the Republican Party's nominee over Donald Trump, I believe in the right of voters to make that determination.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/superdelegates-put-clinton-on-path-to-clinch-before-calif/2016/04/20/b88b854e-06ef-11e6-bfed-ef65dff5970d_story.html
Comments
Post a Comment