Brummett joins the cable TV chorus in making the case that Hillary Clinton wasn't such a big winner last week because Barack Obama won more delegates in Texas despite losing the popular electoral vote.
Correct. Also not quite so meaningful as the Obamaists want you to believe. Neither candidate will take a majority of delegates to the nominating convention. A close count come that day will require unpledged delegates to consider which states each candidate won (sure-Republican states or not); the method by which they won (caucus vs. primary); popular vote total (currently in Obama's favor but narrowing); electability against McCain; results in ALL U.S. states (including a number that probably will go for Obama and certainly, good Democrats hope, meaningful inclusion of Michigan and Florida); further inspection of both candidates' record and political skills as the real fight is engaged these last weeks.
The Obama Texas alibi carries a certain degree of irony for the new-style politician. Ignore the will of the people, his supporters say. (And Clinton's edge in voting was clear and comfortable.) Instead, gaming the system is to be exalted. Judge not by votes but by a primary delegate count influenced by double counting given to select Texas districts that vote Demoratic. Also judge by the ability of Obama's generally better situated supporters to take three or four hours out of their day to both vote in a primary and then attend a caucus process later the same day. One man, one vote? Not exactly. That Clinton finished as close as she did in Texas might even be a small indication of an improved Clinton campaign organization.
Doug Thompson of Stephens Media analyzes today the merit of emphasizing delegate counts. Interesting nugget: Obama has won primary votes in states with a total of 193 electoral votes; Clinton has won 229.