Obama has the money, so with him having a lot more money that her, not closing the deal is bigger failing. He spent $11m in Pennsylvania. She spent just over $3m. So, he has the upper hand with that kind of money. Why isn't he clobbering her?
She's now ahead in popular vote. If you count Florida and Michigan, she's probably ahead in delegates as well.
And Florida and Michigan will be counted. The only way they won't, is if their inclusion isn't decisive. There is no way the Democratic party is going to give the nomination to a candidate who wouldn't be the candidate if all the votes are counted.
Obama has an incredible base of support. But above and beyond that base, his performance is lackluster.
Institutional advantages are far more important than money. Either would have the Democratic machine in states like PA on their side in the GE. You spend money to keep the margins close and force the other person to exhaust their own resources.
So, he has the upper hand with that kind of money. Why isn't he clobbering her?
And, Clinton's in a worse place today delegate-wise than she was yesterday.
The flaw in your assumption is that Obama doesn't receive any delegates in Michigan. He picked up most of the uncommitted delegates at the district conventions
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia ryId=5260
Popular vote totals are an inconsistent measure anyways. It completely invalidates any caucus (MN becomes 1/4 of what MO is), and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in MI.
All this is about is finding some sort of measurement that Clinton can argue is a reason to overturn the will of the states.
If you count FLA you need to disenfranchise the 280K who voted but not for Hillary. If you don't count FLA then the 300+K who voted for Hillary (unopposed) are disenfranchised. So the delegates will probably be seated and allowed to vote at the convention but it won't make a diff. She will not have a lead in PDs with or without FLA and MI.
His win there will pretty much wipe out her gains in PA.
In my opinion, the harm being done by continuing this process is greater than the party building in individual states that results from it. Clinton has just about passed the point where she can exit gracefully, so she's risking the party, the presidency, the nation and the Clinton legacy (whatever's left of it) by "fighting" a war she can't win.
She's either blind, stupid or arrogant, or possibly a combination of all three.
I don't know, why can't Clinton raise more money?
Clinton's support is clearly just a little more lackluster than Obama's, wouldn't you say? So why hand her the nomination?
She's not ahead in anything. Counting FL & MI is an absurd departure from reality. Do you really think that if we held an election in MI today that Obama would receive 0 votes?
Then why do you think that the MI popular vote is a reasonable thing for the Supers to take into account in order to hand the nomination to Clinton?
