Eleanor Clift Fudges
In an otherwise reasonable column
on the Obama/Clinton battles:
Some 50 delegates were reportedly poised to unite behind Barack Obama if he had won by even 1 point in Texas. He lost the popular vote by 100,000 ballots, and now we learn that 100,000 Republicans voted for Hillary Clinton, probably not because of some change in party allegiance but because they thought she would be the easier candidate to beat.
Gee, Obama lost Texas by 100,000, Hillary got 100,000 votes from Republicans, so if we exclude Republicans, Obama would have won? Congratulate yourselves if you weren't duped by the little sleight of hand there. In fact, Obama got more votes from Republicans than Hillary did, according to the exit poll:
In fact, working the numbers out reveals that Hillary got about 116,000 votes from Republicans in Texas, while Obama got about 134,000, so if Republicans had been excluded, Hillary would have won by 18,000 more votes. Of course, you can probably figure out whom Clift is supporting. Note that she assumes Republicans only voted for Hillary because she's the weaker candidate. Why did Republicans vote for Obama? It can only be because he's good and noble and wants to bring us change and hope.
She doesn't mention Rush Limbaugh's exhortation to his Texas listeners to vote for Hillary. Why? Because it doesn't fit her argument. Rush specifically urged them to vote for Hillary not because she was the weaker candidate, but because it would keep the race going.
Labels: Barack Obama, Eleanor Clift, Hillary Clinton, Texas Primary