« Enhanced Interrogation |
Main
| The NYT and The Race II »
19 May 2008 07:18 pm
The NYT And The Race
Pathetic reporting:
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
is entering the Kentucky and Oregon primaries on Tuesday with one of
the most pugnacious political messages of her campaign: That she is
ahead in the national popular vote when all votes are counted,
including from the unsanctioned primaries in Michigan and Florida and
that party leaders who have a vote as super-delegates should reflect
this level of appeal.
This argument is of a piece with Mrs. Clinton’s increasingly
populist image, as a fighter on behalf of average people, but it is
also a debatable claim: Most tallies of the national popular vote put
Mr. Obama in the lead, especially when Michigan and Florida are not
counted.
Isn't there an empirical issue here? If by popular vote, you mean actual votes, the only way this claim is credible is if you count all Clinton's votes in Florida and Michigan and count no votes in Michigan for Obama. It is not hard for the NYT to explain this and show that Clinton's claim is fallacious - not "pugnacious." So why do they punt?
Share This
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c45669e200e552578ea08834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'The NYT And The Race'
A Dillusional, Power-Crazed Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton Demonstrates Her PURE Disdain For The Democratic Republic Of Our Founders
Excerpt: Sir Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton: To HELL With The Electoral College; To HELL With The Delegates And Superdelegates The MOB Says Im IN Like FLYNN!
Hillary has already gone on the record to express her disdain for the Electo...
Weblog: THE GUN TOTING LIBERAL™
Tracked: May 20, 2008 2:22:01 AM
