Topic: Presidential Campaign 2008
On Delegate Counts Why Barack Obama doesn't have the Democratic nomination wrapped up, and why John McCain is not the front-runner for the Republican nomination.by Walt Thiessen
(Libertarian)
Sunday, January 27, 2008
One of the things that becomes rather amusing during primary season is how a single state's primary can make people think that the entire nomination process is done because of what happened in that one, single primary. Witness the Barack Obama victory in South Carolina. Many people, including columnists on this website, are speculating that Obama can't be stopped, that he now has the Democratic nomination in the bag.
Similarly, John McCain supporters (and many national pundits) say that he is the front-runner in the Republican race because of some recent successes, while Mike Huckabee is seen as his main rival. Mitt Romney's star has supposedly fallen, and Rudy Giuliani's campaign is (correctly) viewed as being in trouble.
Meanwhile Ron Paul supporters claim (correctly) that he should have been ruled the winner in Louisiana and (incorrectly) that that now makes him the front-runner in the Republican race. A Paul victory in Louisiana would certainly be important, particularly if the major news media reported it, because such reports would give a sense of legitimacy to his campaign that has been denied him so far by that very same media, but that would hardly make him the front-runner.
But before this whole thing gets out of hand, we should look at the entire delegate count, not just counts that are publicized by the media. Take a look at CNN's Democratic and Republican delegate count pages, and you'll see what I mean. First thing you'll note is that Hillary Clinton is in the delegate lead for the Democratic nomination, not Barack Obama. In fact, it's a fairly sizeable lead, considering that Obama's South Carolina victory netted him 14 votes closer to Clinton. For her to lose so badly in one state and still maintain a 78 delegate margin shows that her lead is a very healthy one. Yes, it's a close race, but to hear the pundits tell it, Clinton has already virtually lost the nomination. This is far from being the case. She's still the odds-on favorite to win it all.
On the Republican side, you'll see that Romney (surprise!) has a sizeable lead over McCain. It's still "early days," but the fact that he has nearly twice as many delegates pledged to him as McCain should make people stop and think. How could this be? Well, Romney is the favorite among the Republican leadership, and he has gained the most support among the more populated states that have had primaries so far. So calling McCain the front-runner is really premature. As for Huckabee, he's already slipped to third.
Ron Paul supporters have reason to be concerned. With just six delegates pledged to him, he's running fourth, but a distant fourth. A boost from a Louisiana victory (instead of second place, as has been widely reported) would have helped his campaign significantly. The fact that Louisiana is still figuring out which caucus-votes to count shows just how strongly the powers-that-be are fighting to keep Ron Paul off the political map.
Speaking of keeping Paul off the map, take a look at the photos CNN chose to use for each of the candidates. On the Republican side, every candidate photo shows the candidate smiling...except for Ron Paul's photo. This is despite the fact that Paul is in 4th place and ahead of some of the other smiling candidates who have since dropped out of the race. (I can't remember the last time I saw a photo of Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter smiling, but there they are!)
On the Democratic side, of the remaining candidates the only one not smiling is Mike Gravel. How curious that the two of the legitimately anti-Iraq War candidates still remaining are shown not smiling. The only one who has any reputation against the Iraq War who is also smiling is Barack Obama.
Does all this stuff about their photos mean anything? Probably not. Yet, I still found it to be curious. It just goes to show that anyone can get side-tracked from what the overall numbers are telling us, including me.
In any event, we should remember two things about primaries and nominations. First, as Yogi Berra said, it ain't over 'til it's over. Second, a front-runner isn't a front-runner until he (or she) has overtaken the previous front-runner. On the one hand, the favorites for the respective major party nominations are currently Clinton and Romney. Please join me as I shudder for my country. On the other hand, with Super Duper Tuesday still to come, there are an awful lot of delegates yet to be committed to their respective candidates. So let's remember who the front-runners really are and that it still doesn't make any real difference until after February 5th is past.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 40 thumbs so far
2008 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, January 27, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, January 27, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Walt Thiessen only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Walt Thiessen is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Your comment on the use of unflattering pictures is true.
A friend of mine that was a editor of a major newspaper for years and now works on Republican campaigns (and also still writes for papers) explained to me how he uses unflattering photo's of the other candidate in his stories to make them look bad.
The example he was showing me was for a local race for mayor and he showed me the picture of him they would run which made the Mayor look twice as fat and very ugly. By the way, the mayor dropped out of the race because of all the negative press..
If anyone doesnt beleive that this happens, contact me and I will give names, etc..
Also, did anyone else notice, Ron Pauls mike was screwed up during the debate(reverb) and the camera shots were often unflattering, particulary when they spent time showing one by one all the other candidates making faces at Paul when he spoke.. They did that to no other candidates.
Lot more true stuff to this than most people think..
"Does all this stuff about their photos mean anything?"
Imagery is equally as influential, if not moreso, as audio content. CNN and other "information sources" have become social engineering tools, more inclined to steering public opinion than any other cause. Exploitation of imagery consumption is essential to the furtherance of whatever objectives motivate the MSM facade. So I respectfully disagree with "Probably not".
Of course the photos, smiling and otherwise, mean something!
Nothing in politics happens by accident (unless you happen to consider Ron Paul successes, which the establishment hasn't planned for and is fighting tooth and nail to neutralize.)
I looked at the delegate count website, and noticed that even though Ron Paul was the second place winner in Nevada, he was listed after third place winner John McCain.... Interesting.
It is nice to see someone pointing out the delegate count. An interesting difference between the DNC and RNC is winner take all status for Republican victors compared to a split based on county votes for Democrats.
Also, it is interesting all the attention during the primaries is focused on the delegate selection process for only two party's conventions. If anyone wonders why an Independent or third-party candidate has such a tough road to hike in order to get anywhere think about it. We all get to know the two-party candidates much better and for a much longer period of time. By the time we reach the general election it is easy for the media to convince people any Independent or third-party effort is simply not viable and a 'wasted vote.' In the same vein I find it amazing how Paul and other earlier candidates were treated like some outside third-party by their own parties.
Great article, I'm also glad you are finding some time to share your insights!
A good reality check amidst the fervor as we watch the state by state primaries.
Recent racey revelations about Ron Paul's newsletters in the 90's kind of soured me on him even as much as I appreciated his Libertarian views.
Obama thinks on his feet and shows a much greater awareness of what is important to real change, that is, some sacrifice and willlingness to suspend disbelief and cynicism.
As a big fan of Bill Clinton, I am embarrassed for his shrill response to Obama's sincerity and Hillary with her delegate lead ought to have shown a warmer forthright acknowledgment of Obama's accomplishment in South Carolina. He is seemingly a uniter and for that America could benefit greatly.
McCain is old-school classic American military industrial complex.
Make a smart choice this time America, we want to believe in you again.
WAKE UP PAUL, its foolish to think Ron Paul wrote those newsletters and is a racist, especially when an all evidence says otherwise. Asa far as knowing all that goes into "his" newsletter, do you think that the Rolling Stones approve everything that goes into Rolling Stone magazine.(they don't)
Not questioning the man's character, Obama is an empty suit, its been proven with his amount of "present" votes don't let him lull you into his idea of "change".
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Walt Thiessen, all rights reserved.