Jay Cost at Real Clear Politics stated in June 04, 2008 article that Barack Obama required less votes per each delegate won, than Hillary Clinton. Jay Cost then posulated that Barack Obama was the more "efficient" candidate.
Most importantly, the article was one hundred percent, WRONG.
From Real Clear Politics and Jay Cost, (in italics are Jay's words, my responses are in bold color cyan)
"Thus, Obama has won the Democratic nomination not because his voting coalition is larger than Clinton's. -Jay Cost
(When Michigan and Florida are not counted, then perhaps the two voting blocks are "equal", otherwise Hillary Clinton had the larger voting coalition.)
As best we can tell, they are of equal size. Instead, Obama has won because his coalition is moreefficient at producing delegates than Clinton's coalition. -Jay Cost
lol, so cheating in Caucus Contests where 88% LESS voters determine each delegate, bribing some Clinton delegates to switch to Obama, and spending twice as much per delegate is considered "more efficient?".
Obama's relatively narrow vote lead has produced a relatively wide pledged delegate lead, which has in turn produced an even wider lead in superdelegates." -Jay Cost
When Hillary Clinton's early on relatively narrow vote total lead had produced a relatively wider pledged delegate lead, which in turn produced an even wider lead when superdelegates were added in, the media spotlighted all of the Obama complainers who threatened to riot in the streets if Hillary won because of a dis representative lead in delegates and super delegates versus popular vote totals.
I am calling out the writer, Jay Cost, who is responsible for the coherent trash (written in italics above) that was first published on June 04th, 2008, three days before Hillary Clinton's resignation speech.
Furthermore, I am demanding, not asking, I am demanding that Jay Cost PUBLICLY APOLOGIZE to Hillary Clinton for the inane, stupid, and completely WRONG conclusion he came to in that June 04, 2008 article when Jay Cost declared that less votes per delegate was "more efficient".
If Jay Cost had simply compared total primary votes versus delegates won, Hillary Clinton might have still had a less efficient total of primary delegates versus total voters than Barack Obama. All that would have meant was that Hillary Clinton had a distinct lead in TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTERS who voted the way voters vote on presidential election day.
There was absolutely no point in adding caucus contests when caucus contests in NO WAY represent voting efficiency other than to skew results that may or may not be representative of presidential voting.
Democratic Caucus contests in Republican strongholds polled just a week prior to the caucus vote showed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton either tied, or Hillary Clinton leading.
Yet Barack Obama ended up winning the democratic caucus contests in Republican stronghold states that require 88% less voters, by a 2-1 margin. The problem is, this is how Barack Obama got his alleged "more efficient" per delegate ratio, by winning where there was a HUGE undervote per delegate won in caucus states that DID NOT honor the democratic tenet of Fair Reflection.
But it's worse than that!
Early on in the 2008 democratic race the media was publicizing complaints being made by the Barack Obama side that Hillary Clinton had an extra large delegate lead based on LESS voters per delegate because of Hillary Clinton's super delegates and committed delegates edge, and that these super delegates should not be deciding who becomes president.
Can we appreciate the irony of that? What Hillary Clinton had early on, was railed against as being unrepresentative of the will of the people, but when Barack Obama ended up with what Hillary Clinton had early on, Real Clear Politics pinions their belief that Barack Obama is more "efficient" at collecting delegate voters.
Barack Obama now had what Hillary Clinton had earlier in the race; a delegate lead based on less votes per delegate and higher levels of super delegate votes, but suddenly rather than people rioting in the streets, it meant that Barack Obama was the more efficient candidate at getting delegate votes.
The media applauded Barack Obama and his voters' efficiency per Obama delegate gained while using the same data when it favored Hillary Clinton to publicize the threat of rioting in the streets.
Clear Politics article also fails to point out that there were districts won by Hillary Clinton where the delegates simply chose to vote for Barack Obama.
Apparently, none other than Nancy Pelosi made "donations" to a higher percentage of Barack Obama delegates than Hillary Clinton delegates, and delegates who switched sides from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama were more likely to get "donations" from Pelosi and others.
Real Clear Politics FAILURE to delineate that caucus results are rather pointless when it comes to who will actually be a stronger presidential election was basically criminal in this instance as it reversed the true relevance of the importance of having more votes per delegate won since popular vote is still how EACH state awards ALL of its delegates.
Which brings us to the issue of delegates won. Hillary Clinton actually won way more electoral college votes than Barack Obama did, and this reality was never put into play by the Real Clear Politics article.
If Real Clear Politics had simply broken down the results into two categories, the delegates won from the caucuses, and the delegates won from the primaries, Hillary Clinton would have had the more "efficient" delegate totals, and more delegates as well.
I can only wonder if anyone else from the media repeated the rampant stupidity displayed in this particular Real Clear Politics article and used it to hammer Hillary Clinton into resigning three days later.
The June 04, 2008 Real Clear Politics article never addresses the COST per DELEGATE for Barack Obama versus Hillary Clinton, which Hillary Clinton easily won in a landslide.
Real Clear Politics deceived its readers and the media by not reporting key data and focusing on less relevant data instead.The three most important data elements to consider are overall cost per each delegate won per candidate, Overall cost per each delegate won in the primary states, and who won the most electoral college votes during the democratic presidential race.
In each of those three instances, the answer would be Hillary Clinton.
Posts
